<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<atom:link href="https://bahua.com/rss/AgzS" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<title>BDC: Closer to Reason?</title>
		<link>https://bahua.com/a/AgzS</link>
		<description>All responses and updates to "Closer to Reason?"</description>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:28:42 -0600</pubDate>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<item>
			<title>Jeff at Tue, 30 Jan 2007 06:45:18 -0600</title>
			<link>https://bahua.com/a/AgzS</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Why do you think the Star article is applying "spin" to the issue?  I didn't really see it.  They didn't mention anything about the _valuation_ of land, who sets it, or how it is set, which is important.  But they didn't say it would all be the same.  They used Haslag's estimated average to explain the amount of revenue the City could collect off it.  Could he have been more clear?  Yeah.  But I thought the article was decent for being so short.<br><br>

A columnist at the Post Dispatch wrote favorably about the issue (St Louis also has a 1% E-tax):  href="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/columnists.nsf/davidnicklaus/story/758473FB5928388D8625726D000F614D?OpenDocument<br><br>

One point of clarification--the E-tax is paid by residents living in KCMO and by employees working in KCMO regardless of where they work, so locals finding a job outside the city isn't always a time to rejoice (because then I'd be rejoicing, which is ironic since I'd rather work in the city).<br><br>

Land Tax is an interesting idea, but it's still a tax.  I'd like to see a table saying "This is how much in taxes you would pay at a few locations in the metro."  There's a total tax out there and the E-tax (or a land tax, etc) may not make living in KCMO more expensive then other places.  I don't know if the E-tax's bad rap is deserved.<br><br>

I need to read more about land tax.  There's a piece of the puzzle missing in my understanding.<br><br>
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2007 06:45:18 -0600</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan at Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:03:32 -0600</title>
			<link>https://bahua.com/a/AgzS</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Star owns a lot of land, most of it put to no productive purpose, in a part of town where the value of land is highest (downtown, obviously). I think they have a very clear motive to poo-poo a land tax.<br><br>
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:03:32 -0600</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jeff at Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:06:21 -0600</title>
			<link>https://bahua.com/a/AgzS</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here's your negative article from the Star:  http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16583713.htm<br><br>

Basically everyone they interviewed hadn't seen the details, yet still called it bad.  Good job, everyone!<br><br>
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:06:21 -0600</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>devil's advocate - dick at Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:22:20 -0600</title>
			<link>https://bahua.com/a/AgzS</link>
			<description><![CDATA[what's your point?  <br><br>

people have been paying property taxes, including on land, which vary in value, for some time.  besides, if you are advocating to paying a different labeled tax to aid your city, how would living in an apartment help?  raised rent?<br><br>

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:22:20 -0600</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
